I say no. This is not going to benefit any numismatist that has a chance to view the coin in hand before making the purchase. It would be of benefit to buyers of any coins sold through internet/auction style venue that couldn't view in hand before purchasing, but most offer a return policy to allow judgement to be passed on the coin once recieved anyway. As far as pricing goes you should be judging the coin and not the holder/stickers to conclude purchase price.
I am constantly in awe of what we do to ourselves. I assume the grade chasers would love these hairsplitting designations (mines better than yours by half a point). It is all really very funny. Instead of coins, people are collecting plastic and/or grades... got to be 'one up' on the next fellow. I certainly hope computer grading becomes a reality soon and puts all this nonsense to bed. Yeah, sure, with this bunch there will be arguments over the quality of the grading software. Never ends. Cheers, RickO
i sitting here and reading some of these comments, it seems to me that CAC has some grading companies cocerned.
as a business , you don't want another company questioning what you do. i think this is a way to cut out the competition.
remember they provide a great service, but it will always be about $$$. if you got a coin back, and its graded lets say 64.5 or 64 PQ. will you be less likely to send it to CAC. and by doing this it builds 100% trust in the grading company that they got it right, with no wiggle room.
and if you think top grading companies aren't looking around, think of this, almost every big auction house now has most coins CAC stickered. WHY , becuase it helps sell the coin.
if this was to happen , how many people would still use CAC ?
SGN, you sorta answered your own question. If CAC has influence, it's built on reputation for quality and honesty. This doesn't put fear in the TPGs , it enforces their own mission statement. This was never built to hurt the TPGs, but to ensure collectors at the high end of the market some added protection. (I think TDN will correct me if I'm wrong)
<< <i>...and if you think top grading companies aren't looking around, think of this, almost every big auction house now has most coins CAC stickered. WHY , becuase it helps sell the coin.
if this was to happen , how many people would still use CAC ? >>
For the sake of accuracy, the number of CAC coins in big auctions is nowhere close to "most". As a recent example, there were 350 in the Heritage Long Beach sale out of 3397 total. And in their FUN signature sale before that, 637 out of 5993.
There are coins/situations where this would be beneficial.
At a recent local show, I found a great looking 1927 peace in ms64. I was interested in buying it and even paying a premium. The story went something along the lines of the coin was in a ms65 holder prior they thought it would upgrade etc. (at this point I really stopped listening). The price was ask plus something crazy like 50%. I walked away quickly.
The coin has a big spread between 64 and 65, something like 8x. In this case something graded or noted has 64+ may justify a large premium.
The coin was probably worth the asking price but the sticker shock was too much to overcome on the spot without having time to analyze and fully consider.
<< <i>SGN, you sorta answered your own question. If CAC has influence, it's built on reputation for quality and honesty. This doesn't put fear in the TPGs , it enforces their own mission statement. This was never built to hurt the TPGs, but to ensure collectors at the high end of the market some added protection. (I think TDN will correct me if I'm wrong) >>
just for the record i never said fear....
but the question is if there were half grades or PQ. would you still use CAC ?????
I voted yes. Take me out back and shoot me I guess
My reasoning mirrors TDN's. MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Let's assume that we keep our current grading system in place, offering review for PQ or decimal grade only to those who request it specifically. Under this service, NGC provides an expanded grade description, digitally-fingerprints the coin, and takes high resolution images. The attributes of the coin have therefore been recorded in a way that makes this grading and expert assessment as durable and persistent as possible. Along with the expanded grade, it's a permanent grade. In this way, PQ or decimal grading would be a supplementary service from NGC.
Let's assume that we keep our current grading system in place, offering review for PQ or decimal grade only to those who request it specifically. Under this service, NGC provides an expanded grade description, digitally-fingerprints the coin, and takes high resolution images. The attributes of the coin have therefore been recorded in a way that makes this grading and expert assessment as durable and persistent as possible. Along with the expanded grade, it's a permanent grade. In this way, PQ or decimal grading would be a supplementary service from NGC. >>
"...it's a permanent grade." Huh? Well, silly me. One of the biggest problems with grading as it exists today is that it tends to be based on marketplace value, which isn't constant with time. We collectors wouldn't be in this mess if grading were 'durable and persistent' (as it should have been all along). And collectors have been willing accomplices to gradeflation and market grading funny business. Sign me up for membership in the Stupid Collectors Society.
Any collector who thinks that this will be a useful service should think again. If you don't absolutely trust the consistency in grading now, will you place a great deal of faith in decimal grading just because it comes with nifty photographs? Does the expanded grade description mean that each grader will spend more than ca. 15-30 seconds looking at a coin (as is the case now)? Frequently, one's perception of 'PQ' depends on the eye appeal of the toning. AT docs have gotten VERY good at the art of fooling even very experienced sets of eyes. How will this new service change this? It won't.
Assuming that this new 'service' starts up, how long will it last? What will happen in 10 years--will another 'service' be offered, call it PPQ grading--when the supply of new submissions begins to attenuate? There is a fundamental problem that TPG firms face--there is a limited number of classic coins that are worth grading, and this aspect of their business is self-limiting.
This proposed service is not like CAC certification---CAC representatives have said that CAC is losing money on this end of its business, but will make money through sight-unseen trading. If I am going to pay for a second opinion, then I think that an INDEPENDENT one is much more valuable.
<< <i>If adding a PQ delineation between grades is a good idea, then of course adding further delineations (PQ, PPQ, PPPQ) is even better. >>
Exactly.
>>
Although I said that as a complete joke, I am interested to hear anyone in favor of the "PQ" idea explain to me why my expanded version isn't better. >>
Your expanded version is very much in line with a philosophical argument (regarding a different issue) that I remember from a medieval philosophy course that I took more than 30 years ago.
It seems a lot of people instinctively say no, and I think it is a result of disliking change (Wayne's World reference: "We fear change.") I don't want to say/vote no for that reason but I have trouble with a few of the possible motivations for NGC here: (1) gives them a chance at grading fees for a lot of coins they have already graded, ie a new grading scale has the capability of putting their prior graded coins at a disadadvantage in the marketplace; (2) there is a perceived one grade or half grade differential between PCGS and NGC coins for at least some series and NGC sees this as a way to deal with that gap; (3) NGC is looking for any way to undermine the significance of CAC in the marketplace; and (4) a means of preempting the Big Announcement on this side of the street. There is a last possible motivation, which may be a bit rose-colored: NGC may actually see this as a helpful addition for collectors. If it is the last and it is well-intentioned and properly carried out, then I would be interested to see it occur. I don't buy or own many NGC coins so I would be pretty much watching from the sidelines anyway.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
<< <i>If adding a PQ delineation between grades is a good idea, then of course adding further delineations (PQ, PPQ, PPPQ) is even better. >>
Exactly.
>>
Although I said that as a complete joke, I am interested to hear anyone in favor of the "PQ" idea explain to me why my expanded version isn't better. >>
Your expanded version is very much in line with a philosophical argument (regarding a different issue) that I remember from a medieval philosophy course that I took more than 30 years ago. >>
Let's assume that we keep our current grading system in place, offering review for PQ or decimal grade only to those who request it specifically. Under this service, NGC provides an expanded grade description, digitally-fingerprints the coin, and takes high resolution images. The attributes of the coin have therefore been recorded in a way that makes this grading and expert assessment as durable and persistent as possible. Along with the expanded grade, it's a permanent grade. In this way, PQ or decimal grading would be a supplementary service from NGC. >>
great point.
this is a way to cut into CAC business, like i wrote in an earlier post,grading companies don't like CAC. this is a great way to tap into that part of the business.
i think if you had something on the label , you will be less likely to send it to CAC.
if pcgs and the others did this , will we see the end of CAC ???
<< <i>If adding a PQ delineation between grades is a good idea, then of course adding further delineations (PQ, PPQ, PPPQ) is even better. >>
Exactly.
>>
Although I said that as a complete joke, I am interested to hear anyone in favor of the "PQ" idea explain to me why my expanded version isn't better. >>
Your expanded version is very much in line with a philosophical argument (regarding a different issue) that I remember from a medieval philosophy course that I took more than 30 years ago. >>
I'm pretty sure I took that same class. >>
After seeing a couple of images that Tradedollarnut provocatively posted the other day (the Saint and Peace dollar), I'm in favor of another delineation after all. Call it PDQ.
Let's assume that we keep our current grading system in place, offering review for PQ or decimal grade only to those who request it specifically. Under this service, NGC provides an expanded grade description, digitally-fingerprints the coin, and takes high resolution images. The attributes of the coin have therefore been recorded in a way that makes this grading and expert assessment as durable and persistent as possible. Along with the expanded grade, it's a permanent grade. In this way, PQ or decimal grading would be a supplementary service from NGC. >>
great point.
this is a way to cut into CAC business, like i wrote in an earlier post,grading companies don't like CAC. this is a great way to tap into that part of the business.
i think if you had something on the label , you will be less likely to send it to CAC.
if pcgs and the others did this , will we see the end of CAC ???
comments always welcome... >>
I believe that people who use CAC do so, largely to get a second opinion. And/or to make some of their coins eligible for CAC bids. I don't see how something like a "PQ" or decimal grading designation would change any of that.
I wish the TPGs would stop trying to "help collectors" with their gimicks. I don't think ngc will ever be as good as PCGS, no matter what they do, short of sending their all of their submissions to PCGS for grading.
I like the option of having decimal grades. That way you could get grades like 63.749579583245861
Not!
I think the current numbering is just fine. As other's stated they have the star designation. If you really think this is a good Idea an independent CAC person should be placed at PCGS or NGC and they can then put the sticker inside the holder. I think all the extra stuff is unnecessary and blows things out of proportion.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
I have taken the PQ or "Star" designation to mean "This coin was considered to be nicer than most others in the assigned grade, however, it lacks some quality that would give it the next grade higher".
It's just a way to be more descriptive without a whole dissertation about the specimen.
That's as far as I would personally go with it if I were a grading service.
Don't forget that grading is just an "opinion". Do your homework. Know your coin beforehand.
Of course I just echo this sentiment here as we all know that already.
What I fear is what was said in a provious post.......that little fancy icons like a "rainbow" on the slab would designate a toned coin, or maybe a small cameo bust for the CAMS.
That would totally ruin the "uniformaty" of the slabs themselves and turn buying coins into a circus show.
Just my humble opinion, Peeps.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
<< <i>I have taken the PQ or "Star" designation to mean "This coin was considered to be nicer than most others in the assigned grade, however, it lacks some quality that would give it the next grade higher"..... >>
The star designation speaks to a coin's exceptional eye-appeal and has nothing to do with its quality for the assigned grade.
Let's assume that we keep our current grading system in place, offering review for PQ or decimal grade only to those who request it specifically. Under this service, NGC provides an expanded grade description, digitally-fingerprints the coin, and takes high resolution images. The attributes of the coin have therefore been recorded in a way that makes this grading and expert assessment as durable and persistent as possible. Along with the expanded grade, it's a permanent grade. In this way, PQ or decimal grading would be a supplementary service from NGC. >>
This sounds like more gradeflation by definition. I'm sure every Morgan $1 currently graded MS66 and sent for "decimal review" will get a grade of 66.01 to 66.99 (at least) which to me is an upgrade. What a shock.
Let's assume that we keep our current grading system in place, offering review for PQ or decimal grade only to those who request it specifically. Under this service, NGC provides an expanded grade description, digitally-fingerprints the coin, and takes high resolution images. The attributes of the coin have therefore been recorded in a way that makes this grading and expert assessment as durable and persistent as possible. Along with the expanded grade, it's a permanent grade. In this way, PQ or decimal grading would be a supplementary service from NGC. >>
This sounds like more gradeflation by definition. I'm sure every Morgan $1 currently graded MS66 and sent for "decimal review" will get a grade of 66.01 to 66.99 (at least) which to me is an upgrade. What a shock. >>
Even if decimal grading is implemented, I doubt that the scale utilized will be anywhere close to that precise. Even if is, however, I disagree with your definition of "an upgrade" and "gradeflation". Hypothetically, a coin which previously graded MS66, and which now receives a 66.2, will have gone from a 66 (of undetermined quality within that grade), to a low end 66. To me, that is neither an "upgrade" nor "gradeflation".
The graders would not be grading to a tenth of a point...rather a coin that had 2 graders call it 64 and 2 graders call it 65 would be called 64.5 As it stands now, in such cases a finalizer makes a decision to undergrade it as a 64 or overgrade it as a 65.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i>The star designation speaks to a coin's exceptional eye-appeal and has nothing to do with its quality for the assigned grade. >>
Isn't eye appeal what makes the difference between a ugly 65 and a PQ 65? Eye appeal is perhaps the most important factor in grading. >>
In answer to your question, I don't think so. At least with respect to how NGC uses the star designation. In their own words, it speaks to special eye-appeal, as opposed to technical quality. There are many NGC star coins which are beautiful, but clearly NOT PQ, in terms of quality. They do not appear to approach the next grade up, and that is what they are referring to as "PQ".
Let's assume that we keep our current grading system in place, offering review for PQ or decimal grade only to those who request it specifically. Under this service, NGC provides an expanded grade description, digitally-fingerprints the coin, and takes high resolution images. The attributes of the coin have therefore been recorded in a way that makes this grading and expert assessment as durable and persistent as possible. Along with the expanded grade, it's a permanent grade. In this way, PQ or decimal grading would be a supplementary service from NGC. >>
This sounds like more gradeflation by definition. I'm sure every Morgan $1 currently graded MS66 and sent for "decimal review" will get a grade of 66.01 to 66.99 (at least) which to me is an upgrade. What a shock. >>
Even if decimal grading is implemented, I doubt that the scale utilized will be anywhere close to that precise. Even if is, however, I disagree with your definition of "an upgrade" and "gradeflation". Hypothetically, a coin which previously graded MS66, and which now receives a 66.2, will have gone from a 66 (of undetermined quality within that grade), to a low end 66. To me, that is neither an "upgrade" nor "gradeflation". >>
Ah, so it's not gradeflation. So which will have a higher value in the set registry, a (n unattributed) MS66 or a (low end) MS66.2?
Comments
<< <i>Grading is an art, not a science. Efforts to "decimilize" it further are, IMHO, a waste of time. >>
i agree.
when i first joined here this type of conversation would have gotten
me interested and all heated up. now i just groan and move on.
This is not going to benefit any numismatist that has a chance to view the coin in hand before making the purchase.
It would be of benefit to buyers of any coins sold through internet/auction style venue that couldn't view in hand before purchasing, but most offer a return policy to allow judgement to be passed on the coin once recieved anyway.
As far as pricing goes you should be judging the coin and not the holder/stickers to conclude purchase price.
as a business , you don't want another company questioning what you do. i think this is a way to cut out the competition.
remember they provide a great service, but it will always be about $$$. if you got a coin back, and its graded lets say 64.5 or 64 PQ. will you be less likely to send it to CAC. and by doing this it builds 100% trust in the grading company that they got it right, with no wiggle room.
and if you think top grading companies aren't looking around, think of this, almost every big auction house now has most coins CAC stickered. WHY , becuase it helps sell the coin.
if this was to happen , how many people would still use CAC ?
If CAC has influence, it's built on reputation for quality and honesty. This doesn't put fear in the TPGs , it enforces their own mission statement.
This was never built to hurt the TPGs, but to ensure collectors at the high end of the market some added protection. (I think
https://acoinshop.com/ —-> https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
A box of one could easily be better. For starters, it depends on how much money you're putting into the box.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>...and if you think top grading companies aren't looking around, think of this, almost every big auction house now has most coins CAC stickered. WHY , becuase it helps sell the coin.
if this was to happen , how many people would still use CAC ? >>
For the sake of accuracy, the number of CAC coins in big auctions is nowhere close to "most". As a recent example, there were 350 in the Heritage Long Beach sale out of 3397 total. And in their FUN signature sale before that, 637 out of 5993.
At a recent local show, I found a great looking 1927 peace in ms64. I was interested in buying it and even paying a premium. The story went something along the lines of the coin was in a ms65 holder prior they thought it would upgrade etc. (at this point I really stopped listening). The price was ask plus something crazy like 50%. I walked away quickly.
The coin has a big spread between 64 and 65, something like 8x. In this case something graded or noted has 64+ may justify a large premium.
The coin was probably worth the asking price but the sticker shock was too much to overcome on the spot without having time to analyze and fully consider.
<< <i>SGN, you sorta answered your own question.
If CAC has influence, it's built on reputation for quality and honesty. This doesn't put fear in the TPGs , it enforces their own mission statement.
This was never built to hurt the TPGs, but to ensure collectors at the high end of the market some added protection. (I think
just for the record i never said fear....
but the question is if there were half grades or PQ. would you still use CAC ?????
<< <i>I'm still waiting for anyone in favor of the "box of 20" idea to explain why a "box of 1" isn't even better.
A box of one could easily be better. For starters, it depends on how much money you're putting into the box. >>
I was trying to think of a good response to that question. Andy came up with one.
Perhaps this is what homerunhall meant by the BIG ONE on March 25th?????
OK PCGS; Rollem!!!!
At least this sized slab can fit all the PQ, PPQ, PPPQ, PPPPQ, etc, etc. adjectives.
My reasoning mirrors TDN's. MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Remember......there are 4 basic qualities that can be found in a coin. One number/grade does not define them individually.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Let's assume that we keep our current grading system in place, offering review for PQ or decimal grade only to those who request it specifically. Under this service, NGC provides an expanded grade description, digitally-fingerprints the coin, and takes high resolution images. The attributes of the coin have therefore been recorded in a way that makes this grading and expert assessment as durable and persistent as possible. Along with the expanded grade, it's a permanent grade. In this way, PQ or decimal grading would be a supplementary service from NGC.
<< <i>Mark Salzberg says:
Let's assume that we keep our current grading system in place, offering review for PQ or decimal grade only to those who request it specifically. Under this service, NGC provides an expanded grade description, digitally-fingerprints the coin, and takes high resolution images. The attributes of the coin have therefore been recorded in a way that makes this grading and expert assessment as durable and persistent as possible. Along with the expanded grade, it's a permanent grade. In this way, PQ or decimal grading would be a supplementary service from NGC. >>
"...it's a permanent grade." Huh? Well, silly me. One of the biggest problems with grading as it exists today is that it tends to be based on marketplace value, which isn't constant with time. We collectors wouldn't be in this mess if grading were 'durable and persistent' (as it should have been all along). And collectors have been willing accomplices to gradeflation and market grading funny business. Sign me up for membership in the Stupid Collectors Society.
Any collector who thinks that this will be a useful service should think again. If you don't absolutely trust the consistency in grading now, will you place a great deal of faith in decimal grading just because it comes with nifty photographs? Does the expanded grade description mean that each grader will spend more than ca. 15-30 seconds looking at a coin (as is the case now)? Frequently, one's perception of 'PQ' depends on the eye appeal of the toning. AT docs have gotten VERY good at the art of fooling even very experienced sets of eyes. How will this new service change this? It won't.
Assuming that this new 'service' starts up, how long will it last? What will happen in 10 years--will another 'service' be offered, call it PPQ grading--when the supply of new submissions begins to attenuate? There is a fundamental problem that TPG firms face--there is a limited number of classic coins that are worth grading, and this aspect of their business is self-limiting.
This proposed service is not like CAC certification---CAC representatives have said that CAC is losing money on this end of its business, but will make money through sight-unseen trading.
If I am going to pay for a second opinion, then I think that an INDEPENDENT one is much more valuable.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If adding a PQ delineation between grades is a good idea, then of course adding further delineations (PQ, PPQ, PPPQ) is even better. >>
Exactly.
Although I said that as a complete joke, I am interested to hear anyone in favor of the "PQ" idea explain to me why my expanded version isn't better. >>
Your expanded version is very much in line with a philosophical argument (regarding a different issue) that I remember from a medieval philosophy course that I took more than 30 years ago.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If adding a PQ delineation between grades is a good idea, then of course adding further delineations (PQ, PPQ, PPPQ) is even better. >>
Exactly.
Although I said that as a complete joke, I am interested to hear anyone in favor of the "PQ" idea explain to me why my expanded version isn't better. >>
Your expanded version is very much in line with a philosophical argument (regarding a different issue) that I remember from a medieval philosophy course that I took more than 30 years ago. >>
I'm pretty sure I took that same class.
<< <i>Mark Salzberg says:
Let's assume that we keep our current grading system in place, offering review for PQ or decimal grade only to those who request it specifically. Under this service, NGC provides an expanded grade description, digitally-fingerprints the coin, and takes high resolution images. The attributes of the coin have therefore been recorded in a way that makes this grading and expert assessment as durable and persistent as possible. Along with the expanded grade, it's a permanent grade. In this way, PQ or decimal grading would be a supplementary service from NGC. >>
great point.
this is a way to cut into CAC business, like i wrote in an earlier post,grading companies don't like CAC. this is a great way to tap into that part of the business.
i think if you had something on the label , you will be less likely to send it to CAC.
if pcgs and the others did this , will we see the end of CAC ???
comments always welcome...
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If adding a PQ delineation between grades is a good idea, then of course adding further delineations (PQ, PPQ, PPPQ) is even better. >>
Exactly.
Although I said that as a complete joke, I am interested to hear anyone in favor of the "PQ" idea explain to me why my expanded version isn't better. >>
Your expanded version is very much in line with a philosophical argument (regarding a different issue) that I remember from a medieval philosophy course that I took more than 30 years ago. >>
I'm pretty sure I took that same class. >>
After seeing a couple of images that Tradedollarnut provocatively posted the other day (the Saint and Peace dollar), I'm in favor of another delineation after all. Call it PDQ.
<< <i>
<< <i>Mark Salzberg says:
Let's assume that we keep our current grading system in place, offering review for PQ or decimal grade only to those who request it specifically. Under this service, NGC provides an expanded grade description, digitally-fingerprints the coin, and takes high resolution images. The attributes of the coin have therefore been recorded in a way that makes this grading and expert assessment as durable and persistent as possible. Along with the expanded grade, it's a permanent grade. In this way, PQ or decimal grading would be a supplementary service from NGC. >>
great point.
this is a way to cut into CAC business, like i wrote in an earlier post,grading companies don't like CAC. this is a great way to tap into that part of the business.
i think if you had something on the label , you will be less likely to send it to CAC.
if pcgs and the others did this , will we see the end of CAC ???
comments always welcome...
I believe that people who use CAC do so, largely to get a second opinion. And/or to make some of their coins eligible for CAC bids. I don't see how something like a "PQ" or decimal grading designation would change any of that.
I don't think ngc will ever be as good as PCGS, no matter what they do, short of sending their all of their submissions to PCGS for grading.
Not!
I think the current numbering is just fine. As other's stated they have the star designation. If you really think this is a good Idea an independent CAC person should be placed at PCGS or NGC and they can then put the sticker inside the holder. I think all the extra stuff is unnecessary and blows things out of proportion.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
i remember not to long ago when CAC was formed people said the same thing...."green bean on the slab , NEVER !!!"or " whats the point".
mark,
always great to here from you, but on this subject we will have to agree to disagree.
<< <i>"I think all the extra stuff is unnecessary and blows things out of proportion. "
i remember not to long ago when CAC was formed people said the same thing...."green bean on the slab , NEVER !!!"or " whats the point".
mark,
always great to here from you, but on this subject we will have to agree to disagree. >>
Thanks, and I have no problem with that, whatsoever.
A box of one could easily be better. For starters, it depends on how much money you're putting into the box.
I was trying to think of a good response to that question. Andy came up with one.
Except proponents say that it's not about the money.
It's just a way to be more descriptive without a whole dissertation about the specimen.
That's as far as I would personally go with it if I were a grading service.
Don't forget that grading is just an "opinion". Do your homework. Know your coin beforehand.
Of course I just echo this sentiment here as we all know that already.
What I fear is what was said in a provious post.......that little fancy icons like a "rainbow" on the slab would designate a toned coin, or maybe a small cameo bust for the CAMS.
That would totally ruin the "uniformaty" of the slabs themselves and turn buying coins into a circus show.
Just my humble opinion, Peeps.
Pete
<< <i>I have taken the PQ or "Star" designation to mean "This coin was considered to be nicer than most others in the assigned grade, however, it lacks some quality that would give it the next grade higher"..... >>
The star designation speaks to a coin's exceptional eye-appeal and has nothing to do with its quality for the assigned grade.
Pete
<< <i>Mark Salzberg says:
Let's assume that we keep our current grading system in place, offering review for PQ or decimal grade only to those who request it specifically. Under this service, NGC provides an expanded grade description, digitally-fingerprints the coin, and takes high resolution images. The attributes of the coin have therefore been recorded in a way that makes this grading and expert assessment as durable and persistent as possible. Along with the expanded grade, it's a permanent grade. In this way, PQ or decimal grading would be a supplementary service from NGC. >>
This sounds like more gradeflation by definition. I'm sure every Morgan $1 currently graded MS66 and sent for "decimal review" will get a grade of 66.01 to 66.99 (at least) which to me is an upgrade. What a shock.
Who is John Galt?
<< <i>I stand corrected, Mark. Shows how much of a"Star" I am.
Pete >>
Pete, you are in good company, as it is a fairly common misconception.
<< <i>
<< <i>Mark Salzberg says:
Let's assume that we keep our current grading system in place, offering review for PQ or decimal grade only to those who request it specifically. Under this service, NGC provides an expanded grade description, digitally-fingerprints the coin, and takes high resolution images. The attributes of the coin have therefore been recorded in a way that makes this grading and expert assessment as durable and persistent as possible. Along with the expanded grade, it's a permanent grade. In this way, PQ or decimal grading would be a supplementary service from NGC. >>
This sounds like more gradeflation by definition. I'm sure every Morgan $1 currently graded MS66 and sent for "decimal review" will get a grade of 66.01 to 66.99 (at least) which to me is an upgrade. What a shock. >>
Even if decimal grading is implemented, I doubt that the scale utilized will be anywhere close to that precise. Even if is, however, I disagree with your definition of "an upgrade" and "gradeflation". Hypothetically, a coin which previously graded MS66, and which now receives a 66.2, will have gone from a 66 (of undetermined quality within that grade), to a low end 66. To me, that is neither an "upgrade" nor "gradeflation".
<< <i>The star designation speaks to a coin's exceptional eye-appeal and has nothing to do with its quality for the assigned grade. >>
Isn't eye appeal what makes the difference between a ugly 65 and a PQ 65? Eye appeal is perhaps the most important factor in grading.
<< <i>
<< <i>The star designation speaks to a coin's exceptional eye-appeal and has nothing to do with its quality for the assigned grade. >>
Isn't eye appeal what makes the difference between a ugly 65 and a PQ 65? Eye appeal is perhaps the most important factor in grading. >>
In answer to your question, I don't think so. At least with respect to how NGC uses the star designation. In their own words, it speaks to special eye-appeal, as opposed to technical quality. There are many NGC star coins which are beautiful, but clearly NOT PQ, in terms of quality. They do not appear to approach the next grade up, and that is what they are referring to as "PQ".
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Mark Salzberg says:
Let's assume that we keep our current grading system in place, offering review for PQ or decimal grade only to those who request it specifically. Under this service, NGC provides an expanded grade description, digitally-fingerprints the coin, and takes high resolution images. The attributes of the coin have therefore been recorded in a way that makes this grading and expert assessment as durable and persistent as possible. Along with the expanded grade, it's a permanent grade. In this way, PQ or decimal grading would be a supplementary service from NGC. >>
This sounds like more gradeflation by definition. I'm sure every Morgan $1 currently graded MS66 and sent for "decimal review" will get a grade of 66.01 to 66.99 (at least) which to me is an upgrade. What a shock. >>
Even if decimal grading is implemented, I doubt that the scale utilized will be anywhere close to that precise. Even if is, however, I disagree with your definition of "an upgrade" and "gradeflation". Hypothetically, a coin which previously graded MS66, and which now receives a 66.2, will have gone from a 66 (of undetermined quality within that grade), to a low end 66. To me, that is neither an "upgrade" nor "gradeflation". >>
Ah, so it's not gradeflation. So which will have a higher value in the set registry, a (n unattributed) MS66 or a (low end) MS66.2?
Who is John Galt?